Table of Contents

Benefits and Limitations of Civil Protection Orders for Victims of Domestic Violence in Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2557)

Principal Investigator(s):Keilitz, Susan, National Center for State Courts; Hannaford, Paula L., National Center for State Courts; Efkeman, Hillery S., National Center for State Courts

Summary:

This study was designed to explore whether civil protection
orders were effective in providing safer environments for victims of
domestic violence and enhancing their opportunities for escaping
violent relationships. The researchers looked at the factors that
might influence civil protection orders, such as accessibility to the
court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of
support, and the criminal record of the victim's abuser, and then
examined how courts in... (more info)

This study was designed to explore whether civil protection
orders were effective in providing safer environments for victims of
domestic violence and enhancing their opportunities for escaping
violent relationships. The researchers looked at the factors that
might influence civil protection orders, such as accessibility to the
court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of
support, and the criminal record of the victim's abuser, and then
examined how courts in three jurisdictions processed civil protection
orders. Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of
Columbia were chosen as sites because of structural differences among
them that were believed to be linked to the effectiveness of civil
protection orders. Since these jurisdictions each had different court
processes and service models, the researchers expected that these
models would produce various results and that these variations might
hold implications for improving practices in other jurisdictions. Data
were collected through initial and follow-up interviews with women who
had filed civil protection orders. The effectiveness of the civil
protection orders was measured by the amount of improvement in the
quality of the women's lives after the order was in place, versus the
extent of problems created by the protection orders. Variables from
the survey of women include police involvement at the incident leading
to the protection order, the relationship of the petitioner and
respondent to the petition prior to the order, history of abuse, the
provisions asked for and granted in the order, if a permanent order
was not filed for by the petitioner, the reasons why, the court
experience, protective measures the petitioner undertook after the
order, and how the petitioner's life changed after the order. Case
file data were gathered on when the order was filed and issued,
contempt motions and hearings, stipulations of the order, and social
service referrals. Data on the arrest and conviction history of the
petition respondent were also collected.

A downloadable version of data for this study is available however, certain identifying information in the downloadable version may have been masked or edited to protect respondent privacy. Additional data not included in the downloadable version are available in a restricted version of this data collection. For more information about the differences between the downloadable data and the restricted data for this study, please refer to the codebook notes section of the PDF codebook. Users interested in obtaining restricted data must complete and sign a Restricted Data Use Agreement, describe the research project and data protection plan, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Dataset(s)

Benefits and Limitations of Civil Protection Orders for Victims of Domestic Violence in Wilmington, DE, Denver, CO, and the District of Columbia, 1994-1995.
-
Download All Files
(5.1 MB)

Study Description

Citation

Keilitz, Susan, Hillery S. Efkeman, and Paula L. Hannaford. BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF CIVIL PROTECTION ORDERS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, DENVER, COLORADO, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1994-1995. ICPSR02557-v1. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts [producer], 1995. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02557.v1

Universe:
Women who filed for protection orders in Wilmington,
Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, between 1994
and 1995.

Data Types:
administrative records data, and survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The user guide, codebook, and data collection
instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The
PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be
accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat
Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is
provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to explore whether
civil protection orders were effective in providing safer environments
for victims of domestic violence and enhancing their opportunities for
escaping violent relationships. The study was designed to build on
prior research that explored the comprehensiveness of relief provided
in protection orders, the specificity of the protection order terms,
and how well and consistently the orders were enforced. This study
looked at other factors that might influence civil protection orders,
such as accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and
private services and sources of support, and the criminal record of
the victim's abuser. At the time of this study, civil protection
orders had become available in all 50 states, but many states still
placed significant restrictions on their availability and the scope of
relief provided in them. This study examined how courts in three
jurisdictions processed civil protection orders. Since each of these
jurisdictions had court processes and service models that differed
from the others, the researchers expected that these models would
produce various results, and that these variations might hold
implications for improving practices in other jurisdictions.

Study Design:
To explore the factors that make civil protection
orders effective, the researchers chose three sites for evaluation:
(1) the family court in Wilmington, Delaware, (2) the county court in
Denver, Colorado, and (3) the District of Columbia Superior Court. The
sites were chosen because of structural differences among them that
were believed to be linked to the effectiveness of civil protection
orders. These structural differences included the court intake
process, the level of assistance petitioners for orders received, and
the amount of access to court hearings. There were four methods of
data collection at each of the sites. First, initial telephone
interviews were conducted with 285 women petitioners for protection
orders across the three sites approximately one month after they
received either temporary or permanent protection orders. Second,
follow-up interviews were conducted with 177 of the same group of
petitioners about six months later. Third, additional data were
collected from the civil case records of petitioners who participated
in the study and, fourth, from the criminal history records of the men
named in the protection orders. The effectiveness of the civil
protection orders was measured by the amount of improvement in the
quality of the women's lives after the order was in place, versus the
extent of problems created by the protection orders.

Description of Variables:
Variables about the incident leading to a
protection order include what the police did at the scene, whether the
police informed the victim about protection orders, and whether the
abuser was arrested and prosecuted. Data were also gathered on the
relationship of the petitioner and the respondent to the petition
prior to the incident leading to a protection order, including their
marital status, number of children they had in common, history of
abuse, and support sought by the petitioner from doctors, police,
lawyers, family, and clergy. Other variables document the provisions
that were asked for and granted in the protection orders, including
prohibiting contact, threats, phone calls, and visits by the
respondent to the petition, requiring the respondent to move out of
the home, awarding care of the children or personal property to the
petitioner, or requiring the respondent to pay support. Petitioners
who filed for temporary restraining orders but did not file for
permanent protection orders were questioned about their reasons for
not filing. Variables about the court experience cover whether the
petitioner had an attorney, whether the petitioner and the respondent
to the petition tried to reach an agreement prior to court, and how
the judge acted toward the petitioner and the respondent to the
petition in court. Other variables document the types of problems the
petitioner experienced after filing for the order, including further
abuse, problems with the children, and violations of the
order. Petitioners were also asked about protective measures they
undertook after filing for the order, including changing phone
numbers, installing a security system, buying a dog, or changing the
locks. Quality of life measures include how safe the petitioner felt
after getting the order and whether there was further physical or
psychological abuse after the order was in place. Case file data
include when the order was filed and issued, contempt motions and
hearings, stipulations of the order, and social service
referrals. Data on the arrest and conviction history of the respondent
to the petition were also collected.

Response Rates:
The response rate was 51 percent for the initial
interview and 60 percent for the follow-up interview.

Presence of Common Scales:
Several Likert-type scales were used.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Created online analysis version with question text.

Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:2000-03-21

Version History:

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.